On 11/17/2010 10:10 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Nov 17, 2010, at 9:47 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>> On 11/17/2010 8:20 AM, ARIN wrote:
>>> Policy Proposal 121: Sensible IPv6 Allocation for ISPs
>>>>>> ARIN acknowledges receipt of the policy proposal that can be found below.
>>>>>> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) will review the proposal at their next
>>> regularly scheduled meeting (if the period before the next regularly
>>> scheduled meeting is less than 10 days, then the period may be extended
>>> to the subsequent regularly scheduled meeting). The AC will decide how
>>> to utilize the proposal and announce the decision to the PPML.
>>>>>> The AC invites everyone to comment on the proposal on the PPML,
>>> particularly their support or non-support and the reasoning
>>> behind their opinion. Such participation contributes to a thorough
>>> vetting and provides important guidance to the AC in their deliberations.
>>>>>>> The Rationale section is missing a discussion of the impact of this
>> policy change on DFZ growth.
>>> I believe that if anything, it would reduce DFZ growth, but, expect it
> to be mostly neutral. I left this out of the rationale section because
> I didn't think the impact one way or another would be enough to
> be particularly relevant to the discussion.
>> Do you have reason to believe otherwise?
>
I think it is important to put into the Rationale the statement that
this is DFZ-growth neutral, that is, if you believe that it IS
DFZ-growth neutral.
By inserting the statement that you feel it's DFZ-growth-neutral into
the Rationale you are showing that you have responsibly considered the
impact of modifying the qualification criteria on the DFZ.
That makes all the difference in the world. Lacking that it makes the
reader wonder if this proposal has really been well thought out.
Ted
> Owen
>